War and Money
Lots of money go into funding a war, that is a fact! Money goes into the planning and preparation, logistics, etc, so we call those expenses of war. Just as moneys goes out from the war account, there is an equally receiving account, into which the money goes into. Talk of "double entry accounting system"
On Tuesday, 21 June 2011, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction told CNBC that the New York Fed has refused to tell investigators how many billions of dollars it shipped to Iraq during the early days of the US invasion there.
"The Fed's lack of disclosure is making it difficult for the inspector general to follow the paper trail of billions of dollars that went missing in the chaotic rush to finance the Iraq occupation, and to determine how much of that money was stolen" reports the CNBC network.
(Please read on full story on: http://www.cnbc.com/id/43487056/NY_Fed_Won_t_Say_How_Much_Money_Went_to_Iraq).
As wars are funded, breeding massive chunks of expenses, my question is who are at the receiving end of the other accounts (receiving accounts). For clarification, I mean, when the associated expenses of wars are paid, whom are those monies paid to? Are they the people manufacturing the bombs and arms, the people who would suffer as a result of the war, the soldier who has been paid to occupy and kill someone in their own country or the family of the fallen soldier?
What would be the point of starting a war if there is nothing in it (profit) for the party who has started the war? There would be absolutely no sense in that. Talk of strategic war! Can you think of few strategic wars in recent times or through history of mankind?
Research question: Who bears the cost of funding a war and who benefits from a war?